15 ms·

> I will be Chelsea’s first visitor since her sister in November. > I bring up her recent appeal to reduce her sentence from 35 years to 10 years, and she seem

> I will be Chelsea’s first visitor since her sister in November. > I bring up her recent appeal to reduce her sentence from 35 years to 10 years, and she seems worried that it didn’t receive enough coverage in the press. She hopes that the world hasn’t forgotten about her. I am afraid world has already forgotten. Google search for "site:news.ycombinator.com Chelsea Manning" for past month gives three results including this one. "Manning" gives more results, but only in reference to Snowden and Panama Papers, no prison. And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her.

ktRolster 10y ago
A lack of headlines doesn't mean people have forgotten. This story proves that not everyone has forgotten.
Synaesthesia 10y ago
Haven't forgotten. After reading this I'd like to write Chelsea. I'm also inspired to do more anti-prison and anti-solitary activism. This looks like a very touching book on solitary confinement - (Hell is a Very Small Place) http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Very-Small-Place-Confinement/dp/1620971372 http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Very-Small-Place-Confinement/dp/1...
- JonFish85 10y ago
  Just a quick note that the solitary can also be a way to prevent a certain prisoner (like Manning) from being torn to pieces by the general prison population. Considering that Manning is in a military prison and is very unpopular amongst the military folks, and transgender to boot, it wouldn't surprise me if solitary is in Manning's best interests.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    I take issue with this, but I don't have a better solution. Being at risk of attack from other inmates is better/worse than the terrifying reality of years of solitary confinement? Solitary confinement is probably up there among my worst nightmares. Evolutionarily, people are simply not meant to be alone with their thoughts for years - especially while simultaneously being kept in a confined space. I have no doubt I would personally go - rather literally - crazy. The idea of unending solitary confinement would, again, I assume, literally drive me to suicide. So, no, I don't want her to sit at constant risk of physical/sexual assault or worse... but I know years of solitary confinement would permanently fuck with me in an extreme way, so I can't condone it in any fashion. What to do?!? Edit: in her own words, the torture of prolonged solitary confinement: http://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/may/02/solitary-confinement-is-solitary-confinement-is-torture-6x9-cells-chelsea-manningno-touch-torture-and-it-must-be-abolished http://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/may/02/s... Edit 2: "Shortly after arriving at a makeshift military jail, at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, in May 2010, I was placed into the black hole of solitary confinement for the first time. Within two weeks, I was contemplating suicide." <- So, I'm guessing maybe I'm not that far off in assuming I'd end up the same way.
    - JonFish85 10y ago
      Regarding the last point, it's important to remember that this is a person who has struggled with mental health issues for a very long time, so it's not just solitary confinement that caused suicidal tendencies, although it probably contributed to that.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        We don't actually know everything that's been done to Manning. The same people who decided how suspected terrorists were to be interrogated, decided how she would be interrogated. So, various mental conditions might be results of more than just solitary confinement, even if they weren't in any sense preexisting.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    You are looking at a false dichotomy. Solitary and general population are not the only two options. Solitary confinement is almost certainly being used by prison administrators for purposes far less appropriate than to protect the prisoner from harm, whenever that is the primary justification for using it.
  - bcrypt 10y ago
    Having visited her (I wrote the original post), I can say this is absolutely untrue. She is much, much better off in the prison among other inmates than in solitary. IIRC, solitary was one of the worst experiences she went through.
igravious 10y ago
CHELSEA E. MANNING 89289 1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS 66027-2304 --- Found that by following a link. https://www.chelseamanning.org/learn-more/write-to-chelsea-manning https://www.chelseamanning.org/learn-more/write-to-chelsea-m... Make sure to follow the on-page instructions or your correspondence will be rejected/returned. The conditions are quite strict. They check for obscenities which is hilarious -- assuming movies like Full Metal Jacket are an accurate depiction of Army life. Append USA from overseas obviously. Perhaps if we wrote it would hope alive as the cliché goes.
- xenophonf 10y ago
  I know "Thank you for your service" is gauche, but she's probably someone who needs to hear that---along with a heartfelt apology from the citizenry who failed her.
  - igravious 10y ago
    I have never written such a letter before. I have never written a letter that I knew would be opened en route by someone other than the recipient. Though I am not a fellow citizen, and as schmaltzy as it sounds, I think I should thank her as a citizen of the world.
- bcrypt 10y ago
  FWIW, Chelsea reads every single letter she receives unless it's illegible. Mail is much appreciated. -yan (author of blog post)
  - igravious 10y ago
    Thanks -yan
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her. I like how you felt the need to take an anti-trans dig at the woman you're claiming to care about. That was classy.
- thr32989 10y ago
  I am not taking dig on Manning, but activists. Gender is irrelevant, what matters is 10 versus 35 years. And you proved my point.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Gender's not quite irrelevant - I'm reasonably certain Chelsea is happy that she gets the medication she needs (as she has written), and that in general, people accept her transition at this point. Humane treatment is a thing that's important, and for trans people, humane treatment partially involves treating them as the gender they are. Personally, I have no skin in this game, but I have a suspicion that the people who fought Wikipedia, newspapers, TV stations and blogs to identify her correctly have absolutely no experience getting someone out of military prison.
    - douche 10y ago
      Fact of the matter is that Manning was born with a Y chromosome and a penis. Mental illness aside, he's still a man, albeit one who has chosen to mutilate himself. I don't really care what he decides to do with himself - although I smart a little bit that taxpayer money funded his gender vision quest.
      - M1ntos123 10y ago
        In your world of pure cold logic Hitler did the world a service by murdering innocent victim for having 'inferior' genes than someone else. Chelsea is a biological man but she considers herself a woman; this is called 'sex identity'. Note: Hitler's world of logic is probably not very logical at all when you really analyse everything, just as this dudes argument with Chelsea having a mental illness and stuff.
MichaelApproved 10y ago
> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her. I can understand not putting Chelsea on the front lines of the transgender rights battle. You need "clean" media stories to make a point. Chelsea's transgender story is easily sidetracked by the whistle blowing story.
- coldtea 10y ago
  So, like not wanting a gay black rights activist among black activism ranks in the fifties? I'd say the combined whistle blowing story make for an even better cause. Except if they only want to project domesticity (we're tame, accept us), not change.
  - avar 10y ago
    > So, like not wanting a gay black rights > activist among black activism ranks in the fifties? This would be more like making a point of making black felons the poster children for black rights in the fifties. It's a pointless distraction to advancing the cause. > I'd say the combined whistle blowing story > make for an even better cause. What makes you think people who agree with the transgender cause all agree that Chelsea Manning doesn't deserve to rot in prison? There's plenty of socially progressive people who think someone who's active military leaking the sort of thing Manning leaked should be in prison at best.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >What makes you think people who agree with the transgender cause all agree that Chelsea Manning doesn't deserve to rot in prison? No, what I think something else: (1) That what he/she did was right. (2) That being for what's right should not be compartmentalized: I wouldn't like black activists don't promoting gay causes, or gays not promoting black rights either. (3) And that the people who I'd like to be on my side, should agree to both. >There's plenty of socially progressive people who think someone who's active military leaking the sort of thing Manning leaked should be in prison at best. If they think that I don't see how they are "socially progressive" at the same time. They sound like "the law is the law" and "my country, right or wrong" types...
rebeccaskinner 10y ago
The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her', and a lot of trans activists and allies do spend an inordinate amount (which wouldn't be so necessary if people made even a small effort to get them correct) of time correcting people on pronouns, but there is a lot of work that transgender rights activists are doing for people in prison in general, and I do know that they've been involved with some of the work to help ensure that she is able to access appropriate treatment while she's in prison. It seems like it would be very difficult for any civil rights advocacy groups to be able to do much for her though, since she's not a civilian or in a civilian prison.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her' No, the correct pronoun is 'him.' Chelsea Manning, despite his self-perception and despite his name change, is and always will be a man. Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience. There are people who believe that they are disfigured even though they are perfectly normal looking; they are not disfigured, even though they believe so. There are people who believe that their limbs are not their own; those limbs are theirs, whatever their perception. There are people who believe that they are the Messiah; they are not. When talking to someone, it may be therapeutic (or simply kind) to use the words he prefers even if they are incorrect, but when talking about someone, there is no need to humour his error.
  - davidcollantes 10y ago
    I understand what you are saying--your comment will be out of sight soon, by the way--but, does it hurts to "humour" someone? What do you lose or win? Why not just be nice to others?
    - RankingMember 10y ago
      Agreed. The world is not this black and white place we might sometimes try to make it. Rather than writing diatribes about how people are "objectively" wrong about matters of no consequence, why not save the effort and call people what they want to be called?
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
Is Chelsea Manning in jail for being transgender?
pdabbadabba 10y ago
> I am afraid world has already forgotten. Forgotten what? I think I'd like Chelsea personally, and I'm sorry for all that she has had to go through. But what is it, exactly, that we are supposed to be remembering and talking about here?
- angelbob 10y ago
  Presumably the highly unfair treatment of a whistleblower. Snowden gets a lot more publicity, but Manning's case wasn't well handled either.
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    I really wish we could elevate quality of our discourse about government whistle-blowers. It is very far from clear that Manning (or Snowden, for that matter) was treated "highly unfairly." This could make for an interesting conclusion to a well-thought-our argument, but it makes a pretty dubious premise. Yes, Manning et al. attempted to do a public service and got punished for it. That seems messed up. And it may be that the information they released is important enough that we all have a right to know it. (I think this is more plausible with Snowden than Manning, but both may have a claim here.) But there really are also serious questions about whether it is OK for an individual person to make the decision for all of us about what needs to be released and what does not, even if we like the outcome in a particular case. What is the answer here? Should we really just decide not to prosecute government and military personnel who reveal sensitive government information (which is indisputably a crime) just because we think the release was valuable? Who makes this decision? What if DOJ or the president like that the leak happened, but the people do not? Are the people well enough informed to make this decision? What about the issue of deterrence? Even if everyone agrees that a leak was worthwhile, is it really a good idea to empower others, whose judgment may not be so good, to do the same thing?
    - DennisP 10y ago
      In a democracy, the voters, via their representatives, decide what's legal for the government to do. So if the government does things that are illegal and hidden, then I'd say anyone has the authority to reveal it. That authority was granted by the voters who made the activity illegal. If the government's activity is legal, on the other hand, then it's harder to make a case. A whistleblower may still decide to reveal it as a matter of civil disobedience, but at that point he's trying to change the minds of the voters, rather than enforce their expressed wishes. He should expect more legal jeopardy, though if he succeeds in changing people's minds, then a pardon would be appropriate. If our legal system doesn't make a distinction between revealing legal and illegal secrets, then I'd say our system is inconsistent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Manishearth 10y ago
HN is not representative of the world.
niccaluim 10y ago
> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her [sic]. Speak for yourself.
- ythl 10y ago
  [sic] indicates a spelling error in context, not a political correctness "error" that is still being debated
  - niccaluim 10y ago
    "Sic" stands for "sic erat scriptum" ("thus was it written"). It says nothing about spelling, only that the quote has been transcribed exactly as written.

ktRolster 10y ago

A lack of headlines doesn't mean people have forgotten. This story proves that not everyone has forgotten.

Synaesthesia 10y ago

Haven't forgotten. After reading this I'd like to write Chelsea. I'm also inspired to do more anti-prison and anti-solitary activism. This looks like a very touching book on solitary confinement - (Hell is a Very Small Place) http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Very-Small-Place-Confinement/dp/1620971372 http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Very-Small-Place-Confinement/dp/1...

JonFish85 10y ago
Just a quick note that the solitary can also be a way to prevent a certain prisoner (like Manning) from being torn to pieces by the general prison population. Considering that Manning is in a military prison and is very unpopular amongst the military folks, and transgender to boot, it wouldn't surprise me if solitary is in Manning's best interests.
- themartorana 10y ago
  I take issue with this, but I don't have a better solution. Being at risk of attack from other inmates is better/worse than the terrifying reality of years of solitary confinement? Solitary confinement is probably up there among my worst nightmares. Evolutionarily, people are simply not meant to be alone with their thoughts for years - especially while simultaneously being kept in a confined space. I have no doubt I would personally go - rather literally - crazy. The idea of unending solitary confinement would, again, I assume, literally drive me to suicide. So, no, I don't want her to sit at constant risk of physical/sexual assault or worse... but I know years of solitary confinement would permanently fuck with me in an extreme way, so I can't condone it in any fashion. What to do?!? Edit: in her own words, the torture of prolonged solitary confinement: http://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/may/02/solitary-confinement-is-solitary-confinement-is-torture-6x9-cells-chelsea-manningno-touch-torture-and-it-must-be-abolished http://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/may/02/s... Edit 2: "Shortly after arriving at a makeshift military jail, at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, in May 2010, I was placed into the black hole of solitary confinement for the first time. Within two weeks, I was contemplating suicide." <- So, I'm guessing maybe I'm not that far off in assuming I'd end up the same way.
  - JonFish85 10y ago
    Regarding the last point, it's important to remember that this is a person who has struggled with mental health issues for a very long time, so it's not just solitary confinement that caused suicidal tendencies, although it probably contributed to that.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      We don't actually know everything that's been done to Manning. The same people who decided how suspected terrorists were to be interrogated, decided how she would be interrogated. So, various mental conditions might be results of more than just solitary confinement, even if they weren't in any sense preexisting.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  You are looking at a false dichotomy. Solitary and general population are not the only two options. Solitary confinement is almost certainly being used by prison administrators for purposes far less appropriate than to protect the prisoner from harm, whenever that is the primary justification for using it.
- bcrypt 10y ago
  Having visited her (I wrote the original post), I can say this is absolutely untrue. She is much, much better off in the prison among other inmates than in solitary. IIRC, solitary was one of the worst experiences she went through.

igravious 10y ago

CHELSEA E. MANNING 89289 1300 NORTH WAREHOUSE ROAD FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS 66027-2304 --- Found that by following a link. https://www.chelseamanning.org/learn-more/write-to-chelsea-manning https://www.chelseamanning.org/learn-more/write-to-chelsea-m... Make sure to follow the on-page instructions or your correspondence will be rejected/returned. The conditions are quite strict. They check for obscenities which is hilarious -- assuming movies like Full Metal Jacket are an accurate depiction of Army life. Append USA from overseas obviously. Perhaps if we wrote it would hope alive as the cliché goes.

xenophonf 10y ago
I know "Thank you for your service" is gauche, but she's probably someone who needs to hear that---along with a heartfelt apology from the citizenry who failed her.
- igravious 10y ago
  I have never written such a letter before. I have never written a letter that I knew would be opened en route by someone other than the recipient. Though I am not a fellow citizen, and as schmaltzy as it sounds, I think I should thank her as a citizen of the world.
bcrypt 10y ago
FWIW, Chelsea reads every single letter she receives unless it's illegible. Mail is much appreciated. -yan (author of blog post)
- igravious 10y ago
  Thanks -yan

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her. I like how you felt the need to take an anti-trans dig at the woman you're claiming to care about. That was classy.

thr32989 10y ago
I am not taking dig on Manning, but activists. Gender is irrelevant, what matters is 10 versus 35 years. And you proved my point.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Gender's not quite irrelevant - I'm reasonably certain Chelsea is happy that she gets the medication she needs (as she has written), and that in general, people accept her transition at this point. Humane treatment is a thing that's important, and for trans people, humane treatment partially involves treating them as the gender they are. Personally, I have no skin in this game, but I have a suspicion that the people who fought Wikipedia, newspapers, TV stations and blogs to identify her correctly have absolutely no experience getting someone out of military prison.
  - douche 10y ago
    Fact of the matter is that Manning was born with a Y chromosome and a penis. Mental illness aside, he's still a man, albeit one who has chosen to mutilate himself. I don't really care what he decides to do with himself - although I smart a little bit that taxpayer money funded his gender vision quest.
    - M1ntos123 10y ago
      In your world of pure cold logic Hitler did the world a service by murdering innocent victim for having 'inferior' genes than someone else. Chelsea is a biological man but she considers herself a woman; this is called 'sex identity'. Note: Hitler's world of logic is probably not very logical at all when you really analyse everything, just as this dudes argument with Chelsea having a mental illness and stuff.

MichaelApproved 10y ago

> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her. I can understand not putting Chelsea on the front lines of the transgender rights battle. You need "clean" media stories to make a point. Chelsea's transgender story is easily sidetracked by the whistle blowing story.

coldtea 10y ago
So, like not wanting a gay black rights activist among black activism ranks in the fifties? I'd say the combined whistle blowing story make for an even better cause. Except if they only want to project domesticity (we're tame, accept us), not change.
- avar 10y ago
  > So, like not wanting a gay black rights > activist among black activism ranks in the fifties? This would be more like making a point of making black felons the poster children for black rights in the fifties. It's a pointless distraction to advancing the cause. > I'd say the combined whistle blowing story > make for an even better cause. What makes you think people who agree with the transgender cause all agree that Chelsea Manning doesn't deserve to rot in prison? There's plenty of socially progressive people who think someone who's active military leaking the sort of thing Manning leaked should be in prison at best.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >What makes you think people who agree with the transgender cause all agree that Chelsea Manning doesn't deserve to rot in prison? No, what I think something else: (1) That what he/she did was right. (2) That being for what's right should not be compartmentalized: I wouldn't like black activists don't promoting gay causes, or gays not promoting black rights either. (3) And that the people who I'd like to be on my side, should agree to both. >There's plenty of socially progressive people who think someone who's active military leaking the sort of thing Manning leaked should be in prison at best. If they think that I don't see how they are "socially progressive" at the same time. They sound like "the law is the law" and "my country, right or wrong" types...

rebeccaskinner 10y ago

The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her', and a lot of trans activists and allies do spend an inordinate amount (which wouldn't be so necessary if people made even a small effort to get them correct) of time correcting people on pronouns, but there is a lot of work that transgender rights activists are doing for people in prison in general, and I do know that they've been involved with some of the work to help ensure that she is able to access appropriate treatment while she's in prison. It seems like it would be very difficult for any civil rights advocacy groups to be able to do much for her though, since she's not a civilian or in a civilian prison.

wtbob 10y ago
> The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her' No, the correct pronoun is 'him.' Chelsea Manning, despite his self-perception and despite his name change, is and always will be a man. Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience. There are people who believe that they are disfigured even though they are perfectly normal looking; they are not disfigured, even though they believe so. There are people who believe that their limbs are not their own; those limbs are theirs, whatever their perception. There are people who believe that they are the Messiah; they are not. When talking to someone, it may be therapeutic (or simply kind) to use the words he prefers even if they are incorrect, but when talking about someone, there is no need to humour his error.
- davidcollantes 10y ago
  I understand what you are saying--your comment will be out of sight soon, by the way--but, does it hurts to "humour" someone? What do you lose or win? Why not just be nice to others?
  - RankingMember 10y ago
    Agreed. The world is not this black and white place we might sometimes try to make it. Rather than writing diatribes about how people are "objectively" wrong about matters of no consequence, why not save the effort and call people what they want to be called?

KKKKkkkk1 10y ago

Is Chelsea Manning in jail for being transgender?

pdabbadabba 10y ago

> I am afraid world has already forgotten. Forgotten what? I think I'd like Chelsea personally, and I'm sorry for all that she has had to go through. But what is it, exactly, that we are supposed to be remembering and talking about here?

angelbob 10y ago
Presumably the highly unfair treatment of a whistleblower. Snowden gets a lot more publicity, but Manning's case wasn't well handled either.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  I really wish we could elevate quality of our discourse about government whistle-blowers. It is very far from clear that Manning (or Snowden, for that matter) was treated "highly unfairly." This could make for an interesting conclusion to a well-thought-our argument, but it makes a pretty dubious premise. Yes, Manning et al. attempted to do a public service and got punished for it. That seems messed up. And it may be that the information they released is important enough that we all have a right to know it. (I think this is more plausible with Snowden than Manning, but both may have a claim here.) But there really are also serious questions about whether it is OK for an individual person to make the decision for all of us about what needs to be released and what does not, even if we like the outcome in a particular case. What is the answer here? Should we really just decide not to prosecute government and military personnel who reveal sensitive government information (which is indisputably a crime) just because we think the release was valuable? Who makes this decision? What if DOJ or the president like that the leak happened, but the people do not? Are the people well enough informed to make this decision? What about the issue of deterrence? Even if everyone agrees that a leak was worthwhile, is it really a good idea to empower others, whose judgment may not be so good, to do the same thing?
  - DennisP 10y ago
    In a democracy, the voters, via their representatives, decide what's legal for the government to do. So if the government does things that are illegal and hidden, then I'd say anyone has the authority to reveal it. That authority was granted by the voters who made the activity illegal. If the government's activity is legal, on the other hand, then it's harder to make a case. A whistleblower may still decide to reveal it as a matter of civil disobedience, but at that point he's trying to change the minds of the voters, rather than enforce their expressed wishes. He should expect more legal jeopardy, though if he succeeds in changing people's minds, then a pardon would be appropriate. If our legal system doesn't make a distinction between revealing legal and illegal secrets, then I'd say our system is inconsistent.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Manishearth 10y ago

HN is not representative of the world.

niccaluim 10y ago

> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her [sic]. Speak for yourself.

ythl 10y ago
[sic] indicates a spelling error in context, not a political correctness "error" that is still being debated
- niccaluim 10y ago
  "Sic" stands for "sic erat scriptum" ("thus was it written"). It says nothing about spelling, only that the quote has been transcribed exactly as written.